I assumed, from reading in traceRouteHopsHopIndex about the behavior
when a path changes, that the only safe thing for a manager to do is
to read the hops from the table and render them to the user in order
of increasing traceRouteHopsHopIndex but without necessarily showing
the traceRouteHopsHopIndex to the user -- that it was perfectly
reasonable for hops 1,2,3,4 of a 4-hop path to be numbered 1,8,12,35
(assuming that they started 1,2,3,4 but there were lots of path
changes during the test).
I think some people are assuming that the intention was that the
values should be 1,2,3,4 (i.e., HopIndex == hop number) and that's why
they're asking for a different definition. Perhaps the right
direction could be to clarify that there is no connection between the
value of HopIndex and traceroute hop, other than the ordering.
Ietf mailing list